Zechariah 12

[Nomad]

Hi,

This is my first post on here apart from an introductory greeting. While the following quote wasn't addressed to me, I hope it's not presumptuous to offer some text-based thoughts on the matter.
 

I'm curious how you would interpret Ezekiel vision in chapters 40 through 48?

It seems to me that one legitimate way to view the book of Ezekiel is in view of the three visions at the structure of the book. That is, it looks like the visions recorded in chaps. 1-3:15, 8-11, and 40-48 lay out a framework that outlines the rest of the contents. In some sense, all of these visions highlight the glory/honor of Yahweh.

The first vision that opens the book involved the divine chariot and Ezekiel's calling (1-3:15). Caution: I think some rabbis warned about meditating on this vision of the chariot, maybe it had something to do with God's glory appearing via the image of a man?

During the second vision (chaps. 8-11) Ezekiel was lifted by his hairlocks and led on a divinely guided tour to the temple back in Jerusalem (he'd been in exile since around 597 BC). In the process he was shown a sequence of unthinkable deeds that abominated the temple and those connected to it. The image of jealousy of chap. 8 seemed to head off the parade of sacrilege. All of the acts that the prophet encountered during his tour were clearly dishonoring to God. The temple became a vehicle for the denigration of God's honor. Chaps. 10-11 describe the migration of God's glory/honor toward the eastern threshold, and ultimately toward his moving out of the temple. Maybe in parallel fashion to Jesus' standing on the Mount of Olives in Matt. 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, God abandoned the house and went to the mountain to the east of Jerusalem (the Mount of Olives), leaving the temple vulnerable to the Babylonian invasion of 586 BC.

The temple was raised, but in 572 BC (according to Ezekiel 40:1) the prophet was again transported back to Israel, this time at the peak of a high mountain where another, final vision scape unfolds (chaps. 40-48). Fast forwarding to the point, in chapter 43 the glory of God was described as reentering the visionary temple. In a curious reversal, it came from the east and by way of the eastern gate. Ezekiel noted that the glory was comparable to a previous encounter and proceeded to fall prostrate, adding that the glory filled the house. Verses 7-9 record an oracle by which Ezekiel was informed that the repatriated exiles would have to put away their past harlotry and abominations in order for Yahweh to take up permanent residence in their midst. In verse 10 Ezekiel is instructed to show/tell the house to the exilic/postexilic community, so they will be ashamed. Presumably, the lack of shame (discretion or disgrace?) had something to do with their inability to maintain the first temple with sanctity. (Mention of the image of jealousy is suggestive that the people's idolatry stirred up divine jealousy for the sanctity of God's name.) The verse implies that the people were expected to show forth some repentance.

Finally, verse 11 involves a conditional statement (at least in the Masoretic Text), suggesting that *if* the people will be ashamed of their deeds then they may move on to the next stage toward acquiring the illustrious temple vision and accompanying social structure. It seems to me that this is quite a weighty prerequisite that is often overlooked. Perhaps it's comparable to Exodus 19:5-6 when Yahweh revealed to the people that they could be a kingdom of priests *if* they would obey his voice. Instead of a kingdom of priests, the community became a kingdom with priests. Given that Ezekiel's temple model was never constructed, it appears that the people also failed to meet the condition in Ezek. 43:11. Perhaps this also helps explain why Ezra 9:6 reveals that Ezra cried out in shame to God at the condition of the nation during his day--after another temple had been constructed. The people proceeded to break off ungodly relationships.

Thanks for indulging me in such a long message, particularly seeing that I'm new on the block.
Steven

I dont have the time or energy at the moment to respond with as long a response as I would like. Although I appreciate hearing your answer, its one I have heard before. I dont see any evidence that we can discount large quantities of text by chalking it up to a conditionality that was failed by the part of the Israelites in verse 11. If anything is left up to man, apart from Jesus Christ, to fulfill a prophecy then it will fail. I might be a bit of a pessimist, but just looking at the state of the church today proves man can't fulfill anything.

Nor do I believe that me saying this is elevating the "temporal" above the "spiritual". Spiritual and physical harmonize rather than eliminate one another similar to how God made Adam with a physical body and with His Spirit to bring man into a spiritual being. I'm not saying you don't see this, I am just trying to harmonize what I see clearly written in the OT in regards to Israel with the NT rather than eliminate the OT promises as "disappearing" with Jesus 1st coming. Ro 11 even states that there was a purpose for the Jewish rejection of the Messiah (as foretold in Is 53) which brought in the inclusion of Gentiles. This then will lead to a future blessing for Israel, as also foretold, when they repent (Zechariah 12, Jeremiah 31, Deuteronomy 30:1-6, Ezekiel 36 and 37, etc...).

I see this Temple as a future fulfillment of Jesus Christ as Messiah when He returns to reign in the Millennial Kingdom. Israel will finally see their promises fulfilled by the New Covenant...just as the Church does when they come under the New Covenant. To be clear, I am not trying to convince you to my view (probably doesn't need to be said...). I'm just stating how I hold my view. I also recognize all the complexities surrounding Israel and the Palestinian conflict today...to which I would say its all to be accomplished as God lays it out in spite of all the complexity.

[gcdonner]

Hi,

This is my first post on here apart from an introductory greeting. While the following quote wasn't addressed to me, I hope it's not presumptuous to offer some text-based thoughts on the matter.
 

I'm curious how you would interpret Ezekiel vision in chapters 40 through 48?

It seems to me that one legitimate way to view the book of Ezekiel is in view of the three visions at the structure of the book. That is, it looks like the visions recorded in chaps. 1-3:15, 8-11, and 40-48 lay out a framework that outlines the rest of the contents. In some sense, all of these visions highlight the glory/honor of Yahweh.

The first vision that opens the book involved the divine chariot and Ezekiel's calling (1-3:15). Caution: I think some rabbis warned about meditating on this vision of the chariot, maybe it had something to do with God's glory appearing via the image of a man?

During the second vision (chaps. 8-11) Ezekiel was lifted by his hairlocks and led on a divinely guided tour to the temple back in Jerusalem (he'd been in exile since around 597 BC). In the process he was shown a sequence of unthinkable deeds that abominated the temple and those connected to it. The image of jealousy of chap. 8 seemed to head off the parade of sacrilege. All of the acts that the prophet encountered during his tour were clearly dishonoring to God. The temple became a vehicle for the denigration of God's honor. Chaps. 10-11 describe the migration of God's glory/honor toward the eastern threshold, and ultimately toward his moving out of the temple. Maybe in parallel fashion to Jesus' standing on the Mount of Olives in Matt. 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, God abandoned the house and went to the mountain to the east of Jerusalem (the Mount of Olives), leaving the temple vulnerable to the Babylonian invasion of 586 BC.

The temple was raised, but in 572 BC (according to Ezekiel 40:1) the prophet was again transported back to Israel, this time at the peak of a high mountain where another, final vision scape unfolds (chaps. 40-48). Fast forwarding to the point, in chapter 43 the glory of God was described as reentering the visionary temple. In a curious reversal, it came from the east and by way of the eastern gate. Ezekiel noted that the glory was comparable to a previous encounter and proceeded to fall prostrate, adding that the glory filled the house. Verses 7-9 record an oracle by which Ezekiel was informed that the repatriated exiles would have to put away their past harlotry and abominations in order for Yahweh to take up permanent residence in their midst. In verse 10 Ezekiel is instructed to show/tell the house to the exilic/postexilic community, so they will be ashamed. Presumably, the lack of shame (discretion or disgrace?) had something to do with their inability to maintain the first temple with sanctity. (Mention of the image of jealousy is suggestive that the people's idolatry stirred up divine jealousy for the sanctity of God's name.) The verse implies that the people were expected to show forth some repentance.

Finally, verse 11 involves a conditional statement (at least in the Masoretic Text), suggesting that *if* the people will be ashamed of their deeds then they may move on to the next stage toward acquiring the illustrious temple vision and accompanying social structure. It seems to me that this is quite a weighty prerequisite that is often overlooked. Perhaps it's comparable to Exodus 19:5-6 when Yahweh revealed to the people that they could be a kingdom of priests *if* they would obey his voice. Instead of a kingdom of priests, the community became a kingdom with priests. Given that Ezekiel's temple model was never constructed, it appears that the people also failed to meet the condition in Ezek. 43:11. Perhaps this also helps explain why Ezra 9:6 reveals that Ezra cried out in shame to God at the condition of the nation during his day--after another temple had been constructed. The people proceeded to break off ungodly relationships.

Thanks for indulging me in such a long message, particularly seeing that I'm new on the block.
Steven

I dont have the time or energy at the moment to respond with as long a response as I would like. Although I appreciate hearing your answer, its one I have heard before. I dont see any evidence that we can discount large quantities of text by chalking it up to a conditionality that was failed by the part of the Israelites in verse 11. If anything is left up to man, apart from Jesus Christ, to fulfill a prophecy then it will fail. I might be a bit of a pessimist, but just looking at the state of the church today proves man can't fulfill anything.

Nor do I believe that me saying this is elevating the "temporal" above the "spiritual". Spiritual and physical harmonize rather than eliminate one another similar to how God made Adam with a physical body and with His Spirit to bring man into a spiritual being. I'm not saying you don't see this, I am just trying to harmonize what I see clearly written in the OT in regards to Israel with the NT rather than eliminate the OT promises as "disappearing" with Jesus 1st coming. Ro 11 even states that there was a purpose for the Jewish rejection of the Messiah (as foretold in Is 53) which brought in the inclusion of Gentiles. This then will lead to a future blessing for Israel, as also foretold, when they repent (Zechariah 12, Jeremiah 31, Deuteronomy 30:1-6, Ezekiel 36 and 37, etc...).

I see this Temple as a future fulfillment of Jesus Christ as Messiah when He returns to reign in the Millennial Kingdom. Israel will finally see their promises fulfilled by the New Covenant...just as the Church does when they come under the New Covenant. To be clear, I am not trying to convince you to my view (probably doesn't need to be said...). I'm just stating how I hold my view. I also recognize all the complexities surrounding Israel and the Palestinian conflict today...to which I would say its all to be accomplished as God lays it out in spite of all the complexity.

Isa_16:5 And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.
Amo_9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Act_15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Where do you find a "millennial temple" mentioned in the NT???

[Nomad]

Hi,

This is my first post on here apart from an introductory greeting. While the following quote wasn't addressed to me, I hope it's not presumptuous to offer some text-based thoughts on the matter.
 


It seems to me that one legitimate way to view the book of Ezekiel is in view of the three visions at the structure of the book. That is, it looks like the visions recorded in chaps. 1-3:15, 8-11, and 40-48 lay out a framework that outlines the rest of the contents. In some sense, all of these visions highlight the glory/honor of Yahweh.

The first vision that opens the book involved the divine chariot and Ezekiel's calling (1-3:15). Caution: I think some rabbis warned about meditating on this vision of the chariot, maybe it had something to do with God's glory appearing via the image of a man?

During the second vision (chaps. 8-11) Ezekiel was lifted by his hairlocks and led on a divinely guided tour to the temple back in Jerusalem (he'd been in exile since around 597 BC). In the process he was shown a sequence of unthinkable deeds that abominated the temple and those connected to it. The image of jealousy of chap. 8 seemed to head off the parade of sacrilege. All of the acts that the prophet encountered during his tour were clearly dishonoring to God. The temple became a vehicle for the denigration of God's honor. Chaps. 10-11 describe the migration of God's glory/honor toward the eastern threshold, and ultimately toward his moving out of the temple. Maybe in parallel fashion to Jesus' standing on the Mount of Olives in Matt. 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, God abandoned the house and went to the mountain to the east of Jerusalem (the Mount of Olives), leaving the temple vulnerable to the Babylonian invasion of 586 BC.

The temple was raised, but in 572 BC (according to Ezekiel 40:1) the prophet was again transported back to Israel, this time at the peak of a high mountain where another, final vision scape unfolds (chaps. 40-48). Fast forwarding to the point, in chapter 43 the glory of God was described as reentering the visionary temple. In a curious reversal, it came from the east and by way of the eastern gate. Ezekiel noted that the glory was comparable to a previous encounter and proceeded to fall prostrate, adding that the glory filled the house. Verses 7-9 record an oracle by which Ezekiel was informed that the repatriated exiles would have to put away their past harlotry and abominations in order for Yahweh to take up permanent residence in their midst. In verse 10 Ezekiel is instructed to show/tell the house to the exilic/postexilic community, so they will be ashamed. Presumably, the lack of shame (discretion or disgrace?) had something to do with their inability to maintain the first temple with sanctity. (Mention of the image of jealousy is suggestive that the people's idolatry stirred up divine jealousy for the sanctity of God's name.) The verse implies that the people were expected to show forth some repentance.

Finally, verse 11 involves a conditional statement (at least in the Masoretic Text), suggesting that *if* the people will be ashamed of their deeds then they may move on to the next stage toward acquiring the illustrious temple vision and accompanying social structure. It seems to me that this is quite a weighty prerequisite that is often overlooked. Perhaps it's comparable to Exodus 19:5-6 when Yahweh revealed to the people that they could be a kingdom of priests *if* they would obey his voice. Instead of a kingdom of priests, the community became a kingdom with priests. Given that Ezekiel's temple model was never constructed, it appears that the people also failed to meet the condition in Ezek. 43:11. Perhaps this also helps explain why Ezra 9:6 reveals that Ezra cried out in shame to God at the condition of the nation during his day--after another temple had been constructed. The people proceeded to break off ungodly relationships.

Thanks for indulging me in such a long message, particularly seeing that I'm new on the block.
Steven

I dont have the time or energy at the moment to respond with as long a response as I would like. Although I appreciate hearing your answer, its one I have heard before. I dont see any evidence that we can discount large quantities of text by chalking it up to a conditionality that was failed by the part of the Israelites in verse 11. If anything is left up to man, apart from Jesus Christ, to fulfill a prophecy then it will fail. I might be a bit of a pessimist, but just looking at the state of the church today proves man can't fulfill anything.

Nor do I believe that me saying this is elevating the "temporal" above the "spiritual". Spiritual and physical harmonize rather than eliminate one another similar to how God made Adam with a physical body and with His Spirit to bring man into a spiritual being. I'm not saying you don't see this, I am just trying to harmonize what I see clearly written in the OT in regards to Israel with the NT rather than eliminate the OT promises as "disappearing" with Jesus 1st coming. Ro 11 even states that there was a purpose for the Jewish rejection of the Messiah (as foretold in Is 53) which brought in the inclusion of Gentiles. This then will lead to a future blessing for Israel, as also foretold, when they repent (Zechariah 12, Jeremiah 31, Deuteronomy 30:1-6, Ezekiel 36 and 37, etc...).

I see this Temple as a future fulfillment of Jesus Christ as Messiah when He returns to reign in the Millennial Kingdom. Israel will finally see their promises fulfilled by the New Covenant...just as the Church does when they come under the New Covenant. To be clear, I am not trying to convince you to my view (probably doesn't need to be said...). I'm just stating how I hold my view. I also recognize all the complexities surrounding Israel and the Palestinian conflict today...to which I would say its all to be accomplished as God lays it out in spite of all the complexity.

Isa_16:5 And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.
Amo_9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Act_15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

Where do you find a "millennial temple" mentioned in the NT???

Not off the top of my head but I don't think this means we can take an eraser to what is written in Ezekiels vision. I dont look at the Bible as 2 sections with the later (NT) portion reinterpreting or transcending the earlier (OT) portion. To me its 1 book and we should find harmony between passages rather than "transcendence". I realize I sound like a broken record, but I think in the cases where OT passages that aren't stated in the NT as explicitly fulfilled or referred to as finished, then we shouldn't remove them. I don’t think that things get left undone or "spiritualized away" in scripture and I dont think the fact that our temporal bodies are now Temples of the Holy Spirit for the believer removes the previous details set forth in the vision of Ezekiel.

Rev 20 speaks of the 1000 year reign of Christ with His saints on earth upon His return with Satan placed into a pit that is sealed. During this period is when I see Ezekiels vision fulfillment. To me, this suggest that it is not until the eternal state is ushered in after the 1000year reign and death + all enemies are placed under Jesus feet following Satan being released from the pit that we will see no Temple but rather God Almighty and the Lamb will be our Temple (Rev 21:22). Since this is stated after the 1000 years it makes sense to me that its not until after the 1000 years that we won't see a Temple.

[gcdonner]

Not off the top of my head but I don't think this means we can take an eraser to what is written in Ezekiels vision. I dont look at the Bible as 2 sections with the later (NT) portion reinterpreting or transcending the earlier (OT) portion. To me its 1 book and we should find harmony between passages rather than "transcendence". I realize I sound like a broken record, but I think in the cases where OT passages that aren't stated in the NT as explicitly fulfilled or referred to as finished, then we shouldn't remove them. I don’t think that things get left undone or "spiritualized away" in scripture and I dont think the fact that our temporal bodies are now Temples of the Holy Spirit for the believer removes the previous details set forth in the vision of Ezekiel.

Rev 20 speaks of the 1000 year reign of Christ with His saints on earth upon His return with Satan placed into a pit that is sealed. During this period is when I see Ezekiels vision fulfillment. To me, this suggest that it is not until the eternal state is ushered in after the 1000year reign and death + all enemies are placed under Jesus feet following Satan being released from the pit that we will see no Temple but rather God Almighty and the Lamb will be our Temple (Rev 21:22). Since this is stated after the 1000 years it makes sense to me that its not until after the 1000 years that we won't see a Temple.

Where does it say in Revelation 20 that Jesus reigns with his saints "on earth"? It doesn't, nor did Christ ever say that he would return to earth and reign on earth.
Ezekiel's vision, like most of the other OT prophetic visions and promises were based on strict obedience to the law.

Rom_10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

It has been well said, that the NT is hidden in the OT, but the OT is revealed in the NT.
I guess that the temple being destroyed for 2000 years and counting has no effect on your view of scripture? That is longer than the whole lifetime of the Old Covenant people in relationship with YHWH. Something DID change in AD70, whether you choose to believe it or not.
The "Israel" in Palestine today is NOT a theocracy, but in fact is made up mostly of agnostic or atheistic "jews". They have no more "right" to the land than anyone else does since they are no longer in covenant relationship with YHWH.

[Bootstrap]

Hi,

This is my first post on here apart from an introductory greeting.

Quite a good one! Welcome.

[Nomad]

Not off the top of my head but I don't think this means we can take an eraser to what is written in Ezekiels vision. I dont look at the Bible as 2 sections with the later (NT) portion reinterpreting or transcending the earlier (OT) portion. To me its 1 book and we should find harmony between passages rather than "transcendence". I realize I sound like a broken record, but I think in the cases where OT passages that aren't stated in the NT as explicitly fulfilled or referred to as finished, then we shouldn't remove them. I don’t think that things get left undone or "spiritualized away" in scripture and I dont think the fact that our temporal bodies are now Temples of the Holy Spirit for the believer removes the previous details set forth in the vision of Ezekiel.

Rev 20 speaks of the 1000 year reign of Christ with His saints on earth upon His return with Satan placed into a pit that is sealed. During this period is when I see Ezekiels vision fulfillment. To me, this suggest that it is not until the eternal state is ushered in after the 1000year reign and death + all enemies are placed under Jesus feet following Satan being released from the pit that we will see no Temple but rather God Almighty and the Lamb will be our Temple (Rev 21:22). Since this is stated after the 1000 years it makes sense to me that its not until after the 1000 years that we won't see a Temple.

Where does it say in Revelation 20 that Jesus reigns with his saints "on earth"? It doesn't, nor did Christ ever say that he would return to earth and reign on earth.
Ezekiel's vision, like most of the other OT prophetic visions and promises were based on strict obedience to the law.

Rom_10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

It has been well said, that the NT is hidden in the OT, but the OT is revealed in the NT.
I guess that the temple being destroyed for 2000 years and counting has no effect on your view of scripture? That is longer than the whole lifetime of the Old Covenant people in relationship with YHWH. Something DID change in AD70, whether you choose to believe it or not.
The "Israel" in Palestine today is NOT a theocracy, but in fact is made up mostly of agnostic or atheistic "jews". They have no more "right" to the land than anyone else does since they are no longer in covenant relationship with YHWH.

I see it in Rev 20:8 after satans time in the pit has expired at the end of 1000 years. He will be unleashed upon the earth leading to the battle of Gog and Magog. Since this battle takes place on the earth, it makes sense that the 1000 year reign with Christ preceding it occurs also on the earth.

We partially agree on the subject concerning current day Israel actually. The current nation of Israel is primarily founded in unbelief and we shouldn't glorify them when they do wrong and kill innocent life whether in retaliation or outright anger. They will not receive the promises of Abraham, and peace + blessing in the land which both were ratified unconditionally and forever set forth by God until they accept Jesus as their promised King who will sit on the throne of David ruling the house of Israel (Lk 1:32,33). I dont claim that Israel is currently experiencing these promised blessings. If Israel is eliminated from the land tomorrow and scattered, they will not receive these promises until they turn in obedience and accept Him whom they have pierced (Zech 12:10). The promise will still stand but only by faith and repentance. Ro 9 explicitly states that Israels sovereign election doesn't equate to sovereign salvation and righteousness. Their Jewishness didnt mean they were "ahead" of the Gentiles or automatically saved, in fact, they went backwards since they sought righteousness by works and the Gentiles went forward since they sought righteousness by faith (Ro 9:30-33). A true Israelite or Jew, Paul is trying to get them to understand, is a Jew who's heart is set on God rather than a mechanical work through the Law OR something you get automatically by birth. A Israelite or Jew is inward (Ro 2:28,29 Ro 9:6) not outward...just like Abrahams example was. We Gentiles have a current connection to Abraham as he is the father for us by the example he set forth through his faith BEFORE he was ever circumcised. Paul was trying to get this across to his fellow Jews. None of this disconnects Israel from the promises set forth by God in the Bible...rather one day, they will see fulfillment of this when they believe Jesus as Messiah and a future tried and refined remnant of Israel will be saved while those who denied Him will not be saved. Israels blessing is connected to their repentance...similar to those of us grafted into the people of God (aka, the Church). I recognize some can tend to glorify Israel as some sort of superhuman. But, I would disagree with them. God says He didn't chose them based on their strength or righteousness (Deuteronomy 9:4-6)...but He still did chose them and gave them a Law which no man could fulfill. So neither does any of this remove Gods standing Covenants and promises to Israel.

All of this debate about Israel being some amazing people or not is taking away from the real issue. To me its more about connecting the dots so that we see a full picture of the Bible with no stone unturned rather than discounting portions of the Bible from other portions.